Home » Sea » LCS 5 To Get New Waterjets

LCS 5 To Get New Waterjets

by Ward Carroll on February 6, 2013

The Office of Naval Research recently announced that USS Milwaukee (LCS 5) will be equipped with four Rolls-Royce Axial-Flow Waterjet Mk-1 engines, which they claim will both improve performance and reduce required maintenance over the life of the ship.

According to ONR the new Axial-Flow Waterjet Mk-1 can move nearly half a million gallons of seawater per minute and will propel the LCS to speeds greater than 40 knots. 

Researchers believe the smaller, more efficient waterjets will help the LCS avoid excessive maintenance costs associated with cavitation — a phenomenon that occurs when changes in pressure create air bubbles on rotating machinery, such as marine propellers. Repeated occurrences can cause whole chunks of metal to wear away, leading to frequent repairs and replacements.  The waterjets’ new design could increase their lifespan between repairs.

Full-scale trials for the waterjets are expected to occur on Milwaukee in the next 24 months.

In other LCS news, Chris Cavas of Navy Times reports that the Navy’s LCS requirement has dropped from 55 ships to 52 — a decrease, the Navy said, resulting from a lessening of the presence requirement to support U.S. Africa Command and not the ongoing budget crises related to the continuing resolution or sequestration.

Share |

{ 86 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ February 6, 2013 at 3:03 pm

Hey, frees up more money to buy some Korean FFX.


Prodozul February 6, 2013 at 3:44 pm
Prodozul February 6, 2013 at 3:54 pm
blight_ February 6, 2013 at 4:44 pm

Or oranges and clementines?

Fair enough.

To appeal to the big gun set, it has a 127mm gun on a 2.3 kton hull (empty weight). One CIWS, one RAM, torps, Harpoon analogue, and some kind of subsonic CM (TLAM analogue?)

It obviously lacks the speed of an LCS, definitely lighter than a Perry, presumably lacks the sea legs as well. FFX may not fare well in choppy waters, but for the local environment…


tiger February 6, 2013 at 3:55 pm

More like money to replace our wrecked minesweeper.


Nicky February 6, 2013 at 4:23 pm

As soon as we can cancel the LCS crap the better the US Navy is in getting some Euro Frigate or the Korean FFX frigate


Brad February 6, 2013 at 6:21 pm

The Navy will not buy rice burners.


blight_ February 6, 2013 at 7:10 pm

It doesn't burn Rice, it's got the same turbine setup (Rolls Royce MT-30) as the DDG-1000 will, along with one of the LCS types.

Just because it isn't a LM-2500…


David February 6, 2013 at 10:36 pm

What Korean frigate are you talking about?

David February 6, 2013 at 10:32 pm

Too bad those Korean ships are 200 million more than the LCS. And the USN would never buy a foreign ship.


blight_ February 6, 2013 at 11:05 pm

And yes, the USN will never buy it. The American military thinks that a foreign design is built in America, it is somehow sheep-dipped American and adequate for our defense needs.


john February 26, 2013 at 12:52 am

The Korean FFX cost US $232 million.

US Freedom class Cost: $670.4 million


Rob C February 6, 2013 at 3:57 pm

So this is only for the Freedom Class units or is the Independence Class ships included as well?

The ships are still barely useful as secondary combatants in my opinon. They might as well be coast guard cutters. I realize their suppose to be used for handing multitasks such as MCM/Surveryor/Patroling, but i still think their going get toasted by Fast Attack Craft that still majority use with most unfriendly countries. Big waste money if they want to use this as a replacement for the Frigate.


blight_ February 6, 2013 at 5:56 pm

They're great for anything that doesn't involve surface warfare. Granted, the Navy has a ton of that stuff that needs to be done…

Gonna have to rename it to Common Support Platform…


Belesari February 7, 2013 at 1:00 am

Lets look at everything they can do.

Ok we are done.

Seriously they can hunt subs or mines because none of it will work or even exist yet.

Oh and yet this (though everyone says it wont engage in surface combat was supposed to be our answer to small boats even though they all out range it weapons wise) is our everything ship.

YEA! 40 knots! To where no one is quite sure but considering it was supposed to go 55 knots which neither ship can make and it can only do that for a few hundred miles then its out of fuel……Oh and it cant fire its gun on the move accuractly.

But hey other than that im sure its worth it.


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 7:28 am

Thats why I'm putting my money on foreign products for Littoral Combat.


d. kellogg February 7, 2013 at 8:25 am

Months ago myself and my brother were debating with a few folks here or over at DoDBuzz about the inabilities of the LCS 57mm gun.

The Swedish (Bofors/SAAB) created a very capable design in the 57mm,
but 98% of its capabilities (accuracy in anti-surface, anti-air, and anti-missile) have only been achieved when tested under ideal conditions from fixed/stationary mountings.
To date, no one yet has shown reports or videos showing the guns on naval vessels at any worthwhile speed actually ACCURATELY engaging and hitting anything smaller than a derelict traget ship at close ranges.

Shooting static, not-moving targets from a stationary ship is no measure of a weapon's abilities.
Show me the footage of an LCS (or ANY vessel) moving over 20knots and actually hitting something (aircraft-sized) at a useful distance that could represent a potential threat scenario (ignoring USN ideals of an LCS chasing pirates at 40knots,..what exactly can it engage them with if they don't stop?).
If the ship has to sit nearly motionless to even chance hitting something a few km away, then why even have the expense of the gun system in the first place?

Will Leach February 8, 2013 at 4:01 am
Geo/USN/Ret February 14, 2013 at 6:09 pm

Rob, I believe you got that right, This class is a little more useless than an FFG without a missle on it.


Lance February 6, 2013 at 6:13 pm

Thats after this month the Navy has the money to make a LCS 5!


Big-Dean February 6, 2013 at 7:20 pm

"will help the LCS avoid excessive maintenance costs" translated into English: this means that the LCS will now be able to go to sea for 2 whole days before the next maintenance cycle/drydock period


superraptor February 6, 2013 at 10:47 pm

these jets are so loud that a Chinese sub can sink an LCS from 300 miles away. Brillant! Sequestration cometh!!!


Josephunh February 7, 2013 at 8:01 am

Great it can go 40+ knots. Still can't defend itself or project any type of power so its still worthless.


Dfens February 7, 2013 at 8:10 am

Maybe instead of "a force for good" their motto could be, "run away, run away!"


Praetorian February 8, 2013 at 4:14 pm
TonyC February 7, 2013 at 8:56 am

40 knots will allow this ship to run from trouble until cavation torpedoes are widely used. The aluminum superstructure means antiship missiles will blow right through it without detonating. I wouldn't feel safe on one of these ships.


Dfens February 7, 2013 at 9:53 am

I totally agree. Hell, why don't these hyper-expensive ships use cavitating hydrofoils and aerodynamics to go 100+ mph using the same power plant? Can you imagine how much these defense contractors would bill us for one like that? If they want them to be light and fast, make them light and fast. If they're supposed to be heavy and well armed, do that. The LCS as they are now are ducks on a pond.


d. kellogg February 9, 2013 at 9:59 am

For the foreseeable (technologically achievable within next couple decades) future,
supercavitating torpedoes are little more than fire-and-forget weapons shot into a general direction nlike the first torpedoes: gyroscopically controlled or poerhaps even INS equipped (Inertial Navigation).
But it will be a considerable amount of time (and expensive effort) before adequate noise-cancelling systems (hardware and software) that allow a supercav torpedo to be equipped with terminal homing sonar guidance that isn't confused by the supercav's own supercavitation-producing system.
In effect, no different than expecting a 40+knot LCS on waterjets to listen for subs with sonar.
Just too much noise.

The real threat to LCS would be antiship missiles: at high speed, an LCS has an increased thermal signature (and its radar image isn't stealthy at all), and RAMs and contermeasures aside, few antiship missiles moving at over 600mph are going to care if it's a ship moving at 40knots or only 20.


Dfens February 11, 2013 at 8:43 am

Cavitating hydrofoils share some features with cavitating torpedoes but are considerably different in function. They, like conventional hydrofoils, lift the hull of the ship out of the water, but they develop much more lift for their area than a conventional hydrofoil does, thus they can be smaller and produce less drag. Plus the top side cavitating surface produces almost no drag, which is a key benefit of cavitation wherever it is used. Also, what you consider to be the downside of cavitating torpedoes is more propaganda than fact.


Dave C. June 28, 2014 at 7:18 am

idiot…..navy vessels have had aluminum superstructures since the cold war!!


tiger February 7, 2013 at 9:34 am

Ok, it's a well armed waterski boat…


Big-Dean February 8, 2013 at 5:49 pm

my jetski is more well armed than the LCS


blight_ February 11, 2013 at 11:13 am

Yours has a 57mm? Badass.


Nicky February 7, 2013 at 9:55 am

I hear the Royal Thai navy is looking at the LCS to replace their Frigate. Let's see how fast that goes


PolicyWonk February 7, 2013 at 12:21 pm

While its nice these new water-jets will make the ship easier to maintain, I remain unclear on why the ship needs to go in excess of 40 knots (the navy is still trying to figure that out as well).

However, the engines do nothing to inspire confidence for a sea frame that has a survivability rating at level 1 (less than that of a fleet tanker), the lack of any OTH attack capability (nary even a box o' harpoons) that would give a real enemy any pause, or the real ability to fight in the littorals they were intended for. And none of the "mission packages" contain sufficient weapons/armaments to remedy that problem.

The Brits have designed their new Type 28 Global Combat Ship that costs less, but gives you so much more in return. We also have the NSC's that the USCG is building, and versions of those that are up-armored with heavier armaments have been offered to the navy as a considerable cost savings (with far longer legs).


Jacob February 7, 2013 at 6:08 pm

The only thing I can think of regarding the ship's speed is that a 40-knot ship would reduce the "zone of no escape" should a LCS be engaged by submarine launched torpedoes.


PolicyWonk February 8, 2013 at 12:29 pm

Good point: "he who fights and runs away will live to run another day…".



Belesari February 9, 2013 at 7:18 am

Except…..torpedo's are faster and ASM are far far faster.


Big-Dean February 8, 2013 at 5:52 pm

the only way the LCS knows a torpedo is bearing down on them at 50+ knots is when they get blown to the sky in a million pieces


Phono February 9, 2013 at 7:07 am

alltogether what the LCS seems to give in return is a more agile warfare. I don't think that this has ever been a disadvantage.


Belesari February 11, 2013 at 2:58 pm

No it has no warfare.

The fact is we have no replacement for the Frigates we need. No minewarfare or sub hunting. Its hull is so thin it can never go into harms way, Its range at 55kts is around 300 or so mi and its cruising speed15Kts.

What can it bring? A seahawk or two and weapons out ranged by 95% of those on the ocean in the air or on land.

Oh and it can work by itself for a week at max then everyone is out of food.


blight_ February 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm

The agile LCS is like that guy who drives WOT and burns his brakes through and suffers terrible fuel economy.

The next question is what are you running into battle with? Modules that do your work for you on a platform that by itself isn't particularly great? Considering the promise of instant plug and play modules has been shown to a farce, we could have problems if you pull ships with the wrong modules and throw them into the fight because you need 57mm to swat Boghammars. Bye bye LCS…now we have extra modules dockside but we wasted our LCS on boghammar-swatting.


kiwiwni February 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm

"a phenomenon that occurs when changes in pressure create steam bubbles on rotating machinery, such as marine propellers. The bubbles of steam collapse, creating shock waves that can erode nearby hard parts."

Fixed. :)

Whoever inserted air instead of steam (water vapor) needs an intensive course in reality-checking…


Dfens February 7, 2013 at 1:21 pm

Even better would be if the Navy would figure out how to use stable propeller cavitation bubbles to make them that much more efficient. Instead they are still fighting against cavitation long after they should have been taking advantage of it.


DocScience February 12, 2013 at 5:25 pm

It's VERY wrong, but not entirely wrong, in highly aerated water, like that found at the sea surface, dissolved air in the water bubbles out BEFORE the water itself vaporizes.

But the energy in the air bubbles is TINY in comparison to the enormous power locked in the water vapor explosion/implosions. It's the water that does the damage.


Will Leach February 8, 2013 at 4:33 am

Im going to try and post here one last time.

No one is suggesting that all of our hardware should come from over sees. If we cant compete for our own defense contracts, there is are bigger economic problems to worry about than buying foreign sometimes. We prospered free for a long time, I dont see how centrally planned protectionism will help.

Buying a good foreign product now and again wouldnt gut our industrial base. If that was the case, it would be unconscienable and sgort sighted fo ever sell anything to our allies. Sometimes they will want what we have, and that boost to our industrial base will make buying foreign acceptable. Its called trade, smart countries do it.

Of course, foreign products should only be purchased when said products possess one or more decisive advantage over domestic competitors. In the Navys case, if saving money on a European frigate gives us a better ship at a better price, we can use those savings to invest elsewhere domestically, maybe smaller shipbuilding or modular upgrade programs that could fill gaps in our shrinking fleet. Such small programs would allow us to pracfice getting the aquisition process right.

We also need a more open minded approach for design. A Navy team, or teams, could submit proposals along with ours and other countries private companies designs when the Navy issues a requirement, or just when they have a really good idea.

I really think we need to plan for gradual improvememts in design and production, rather than big leaps every few decades. In fact, I think this approach would allow big leaps to happen more often than when we try to force them.

Look at the Su-10 series. It went from the Su-27 to the Su-37 to the Su-35, creating variants like the Su-34 along the way, and set the stage for the Pak-FA. Lets start learning lessons from abroad, look at European ship building right now, look at Saabs NG. Look at Korea. All lessons from countries with far less economic resources than us, yet they have made the most of it. We cant let our past success lead to more hubris now or in the future.

Lets start small and set realistic short term goals. Lets use off the shelf parts, plan for less than the ideal, and lets plan on taking baby steps to get from good enough now to great tommorow.


john February 26, 2013 at 12:54 am

"Lets start learning lessons from abroad"

Now that's a very foreign concept to most Americans.


nh1 February 8, 2013 at 9:14 am

yikes, rolls royce engines? what happened to the buy american act?


blight_ February 8, 2013 at 9:42 am

We're using Rolls Royce MT30's for the Zumwalt and the LCS, and the Rolls Royce Pegasus powers our British Harriers, and the Rolls Royce LiftSystem powers the JSF-B.

The M-249 SAW is an FN Minimi, the M-240 is the FN-MAG, the HK 416 is obviously German; in handgunland the SOCOM is based off an HK pistol; the M9 is Italian and the Sig Sauer is Swiss. For naval weapons, the 57mm gun is Bofors (Swede?), the 76mm from Oto-Melara(Italian). Back when we used to use them, Durandals were French runway cratering weapons. The Abrams uses a Rheinmetall design for its 120mm, and the 105mm that preceded it was based on the British L7.

What's really important is that as NATO countries every country standardises on ammunition (5.56, 7.62, .338, 0.50, 60mm, 81mm, 105mm, 120mm, 155mm et al) and magazines, and retains independent supplies and/or manufacturing capability; because you never know when everyone will be operating in the same AO and needs common resupply.

Coalition ops in Afghanistan would be a worse if coalition members from different countries couldn't even share ammunition. Guns are different, sure…


Dfens February 11, 2013 at 11:19 pm

Buy American? You must be joking. We spend more on defense now than we did at the height of the Cold War, and yet defense sector employment is as low as it has been since WW2 started. Where do you think all that money is going? I can assure you, it's not all going into my bank account.


Jimmy February 9, 2013 at 11:14 pm

There are two types of ships.Submarines and targets.The U.S, is broke.Stop spending money and resources abroad.We don't need to be the policeman for the world and we can't afford any money for foreign aid.We are in need of aid ourselves.
Bring all our military home,use the army to close the border with Mexico and use the navy and marines to protect the east coast and west coast.Change the air force back to the army air corp and eliminate that as a separate branch of military.


Big Dean February 10, 2013 at 1:10 am

a lot of wisdom there Jimmy :-)


tiger February 10, 2013 at 5:34 am

Jimmy You sound like Charles Lindbergh , cicra 1939.


Belesari February 11, 2013 at 3:01 pm

Except none of that works. There are two kinds of people who seem to learn nothing of history. Fools and idiots.

The Idiot is to stupid to realize what he is being shown, And the Fool knows perfectly well what the past says just ignores it or believes its wrong. Neither care about the millions who die for that ignorance and arrogance.


blight_ February 11, 2013 at 3:15 pm

Isolationism will work the third time around, amirite? Hah.


Big-Dean February 10, 2013 at 1:21 am

Here's the state of our Navy today:
-maintenance has gone to hell
-carriers are becoming dock queens
-Political correctness above warfighting
-The Chef's mess has been castrated
-All true warriors are being "fired, "relieved," and or push aside
-We have more admirals now than we have ships
-crappy uniforms
-and a fleet that is every shrinking every year

and to add to all of this stink we have:
-The LCS is "the future of the Navy"


dunsel February 15, 2013 at 4:10 pm

ONR? Since when is ONR doing ship design? Since when has ONR been writing NAVSEA contracts? I guess Persons is letting ONR run the contracts shop and OPNAV is listening to the ONR ship designers.


foakley sunglasses April 10, 2013 at 12:29 am
abnoroxyKax April 10, 2013 at 12:32 am
SFP May 23, 2013 at 2:30 am

“will help the LCS avoid excessive maintenance costs” translated into English: this means that the LCS will now be able to go to sea for 2 whole days before the next maintenance cycle/drydock period


Onitsuka Tiger mexico 66 shoes discount September 3, 2013 at 4:00 am
d. kellogg February 7, 2013 at 8:27 am

Multiple points around the ship with CROWS-type remotre weapons stations armed with machine guns or chain guns for close-in work and ATGMs or MANPADS, would be more effective, as fire-and-forget missiles aren't reliant on a ship's stability.

A main battle with its stabilization can effective engage and hit targets on the move across rough terrain, but will the LCS ever train its gunnery crews to such levels of on-the-move accuracy and proficiency?


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 8:43 am

Not sure what the 57mm is intended to do, asides from swat Boghammars.

The Navy is thriving on the ambiguity of the word "littoral". If we're swatting Boghammars it can be done with far smaller boats and far more effective ones. If we intend to fight we can do it with the non-modular export variants proposed, and cheaper too.

The Navy needs to pick a modular+export version and run with it. One will be a surface warfare combatant without modular capability, the other will be modular.


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 8:44 am

Sure. Any shipbuilders left in the US that aren't deeply embedded with the DoD anymore? Look at the National Security Cutter for the USCG…that didn't go well either.

Sometimes it takes foreign competition to motivate domestic designers to say "oh damn, we can't just make mediocre crap anymore"


Will Leach February 8, 2013 at 3:52 am
Will Leach February 8, 2013 at 3:58 am
Dfens February 7, 2013 at 9:44 am

The solution doesn't match the problem. If the problem is we pay our defense contractors more to f us, then the answer isn't "buy our weapons somewhere else". The answer is, stop paying them more to f us. Hell, how many more jobs do we have to lose to overseas companies before we figure that one out?


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 10:09 am

The procurement system is pretty dysfunctional. We stopped paying them for the F-22, and we got the JSF. We stopped paying them for the B-2…and well, we're not sure yet if NG got the memo because they haven't been able to compete for aircraft ever since (Global Hawk?), and we still have no new bomber.

We scolded over the Seawolf and got the VA. We are still in Zumwalt land and I'm not sure yet if the message is clear.

If we do the same with the LCS, I suspect the LCS program will get canned at a handful of boats plus R&D cost. The usual "if only" people will come out and say "if only we threw them a few billion more"


Will Leach February 8, 2013 at 4:15 am
Dfens February 7, 2013 at 1:10 pm

We only get to a really bad place quicker if we outsource our defense.


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 2:55 pm

We're already in a bad place. If it weren't for the good stuff built during the Cold War we'd be as helpless as the Soviet, I mean, Russian, Navy.


Dfens February 7, 2013 at 4:33 pm

It is tempting to say, "we're in a bad place, it can't get any worse." The problem is, it can get worse. The way things are now, we can fix our procurement system and the people we have in place now can work more efficiently to pick up the pace of the design and innovation of our weapons. If we outsource everything, we start from scratch. It could take a generation just to get to where we are now in weapons development, and we suck now.


blight_ February 7, 2013 at 8:46 pm

Do you think the Navy can get back in the design biz?


Dfens February 8, 2013 at 7:54 am

Certainly! Once they stop buying designs from defense contractors those engineers have to go somewhere. Plus they already have a bunch of engineers who do R&D. A lot of their engineers don't have any technical skills left after decades of doing technical oversight of contractors, but probably even some of them could make a comeback and contribute. The main thing is the Navy has to have the will and fortitude to just do it.


Dfens February 8, 2013 at 8:02 am

I am in a tough spot arguing for domestic design of Naval ships when almost any option beats the current status quo. Certainly we should buy foreign ships if we have a pressing need for a Naval force that is larger than what we have. Also, in the case where a foreign supplier has a type of ship that we do not have the expertise to design, and need, then we should purchase those. Overall, though, buying weapons from overseas is a one way ticket to an ass whooping.


blight_ February 8, 2013 at 8:58 am

The history of the role of government in weapons system design is rather interesting.

In naval affairs, navies designed their own warships through the Age of Sail, and did so through World War 2. When it comes to aerospace, much of the work was done by private companies.


Dfens February 8, 2013 at 10:01 am

Even in aerospace the Air Force played a significant role. Bell built the X-1, but it was designed by NACA engineers, as were many of the X planes. The Air Force Research Labs used to be staffed by scientists and engineers who did their own research instead of contracting it out to industry. Back when NASA designed their own rockets, we send men to the Moon. The Rockwell designed space shuttle kept us from sending men farther than low earth orbit for 30 years, and now even to repeat John Glenn's 1962 feat NASA has to rent a ride on an ex-Soviet Union designed rocket.


Rob February 8, 2013 at 8:22 pm

I suspect they picked the gun since its mass produced. Frankly i hadn't thought of the problem 57mm would have firing at units while its full bore running. Old 76mm SuperMelo may have same problems, but i don't know.

I think they went with the gun because it won't out right destroy the small craft it was intended to bag in first place. Their still trying make this more useful Cyclone Class Ship but bigger.

Unfortunately, i don't think these module that USN is using is adaptable to the Danish's StanFlex system. They've been using those things for while now. They've retired the original class that was using them. So i wonder how usable they really are, aside their using these modules with their newer bigger ship.


blight_ February 11, 2013 at 11:12 am

Indeed. A "better Cyclone" would be a fairly decent short-range Littoral Combatant. But the present LCS..hmm.


blight_ February 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Mm. But that's in contrast to the production aircraft, which seem to have been mostly done inhouse.

For the Navy, there were a number of interesting prototypes that had to be tested since no commercial vendor would dare touch them without charging the USG out the rear…like the USS Nautilus, and the Triton.

The Navy should take charge of designing the interesting prototypes, and in exchange for taking on the R&D insist on sane prices and good production numbers.


Dfens February 11, 2013 at 11:13 pm

You're right, the production aircraft up to the size of the C-130 (including the C-130, incidentally) were developed using defense contractor funds. There is an expense point at which no contractor can afford to develop an airplane because if they developed it and the military did not buy it, they would instantly go out of business. We don't need any more companies "too big to fail", so when the expense of developing weapons gets that high, as they routinely do with ships, then they should be developed by the service requiring the weapon.

Capitalism works great as can be seen in the rapid development of aircraft from the Wright brothers through the century series of fighters. When it comes to the US taxpayer picking up the bill for development, that's where the usefulness of for profit contractors stops because as far as I can tell the only incentives possible from that point forward are negative. That is, the incentives are all for the contractor to be more wasteful instead of more productive.


d. kellogg February 12, 2013 at 8:28 am

As to choosing between the tried-and-trusted Italian 76mm that adorned both the Perry class frigates and Pegasus class hydrofoils, and the newer 57mm design,
it was stated that the rate of fire of the 57 (up to 220rpm) created greater "throw weight" of shells downrange (to 17km with HCER) than the 76mm (to 90rpm in US versions, and to 16km, although the SuperRapid does 120rpm and 20km with ER ammo).

Years ago United Defense (prior to BAE acquisition merger) was developing a 60mm ETC gun as a future CIWS that still sat in the Phalanx footprint. They were developing guided shells, and the project went by the wayside eventually.
Now, ATK has been developing the Bushmaster 50mm C-RAM gun for EAPS (Extended Area Protection System), utilizing steerable ammo, which in theory should be adaptable to the 57mm caliber.
However, the Italians' developments with the Davide system and Vulcano & Strales/DART ammo for the 76mm suggest the 76 would've been a better option, as the precision guidance and extended ranges far surpass anything any 57 will ever muster.

EAPS, http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday1


d. kellogg February 12, 2013 at 8:29 am



riceball February 12, 2013 at 6:03 pm

You sure about that? Our M240s, M249s, AT-4s, Carl Gustavs, and LAVs seem to be serving us just fine and they're all foreign designs but are all built here. You're forgetting that the Berry law requires that everything that our military uses has to be built here in the US and that applies from socks all the way up to and including ships. So even we bought ships from Europe or Korea they would still have to be built here by US workers in US factories


blight_ February 12, 2013 at 6:15 pm

Dfens' is pointing to a slippery slope where we become a remanufacturer of other people's weapons instead of a builder of them.


john February 26, 2013 at 12:51 am


Batch I – 2,300 tons (empty)
Length: 114 m (374 ft)
Propulsion: 1 x Rolls-Royce MT30[1] CODOG
Speed: 30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph) (max)
18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph) (cruising)
Range: 8,000 km (5,000 mi)
Complement: 140
Armament: 1 x 5 inch (127mm/L62) Mk-45 Mod 4 naval gun

There are different variants and 1st variant cost US $232 million. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ffx-koreas-ne


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: